Forum Replies Created
April 4, 2014 at 11:58 am #150113
Back to the topic at hand, “Blue Jasmine” for sure (with Bullock as a very close second), and “Notes on a Scandal,” although I do like JH’s win for “Dreamgirls” because I do believe that movie only came alive when she was on screen.
Sorry smiley. Confused your post with vozas’es.
Perhaps Jennifer could sing in all of her films……..
She won for THAT performance. Just because one doesn’t like her follow up work should not discount the validity of what she did in that film. And what she did in that film was elevate it every second she was in it, whether singing or not. And her signature vocal moment I’d argue contained as much “acting” as any line of dialogue.
It was the performance I remembered most that year. So I don’t think it’s fair to say that just because it was her debut, and just because she wasn’t a trained actress and just because her subsequent work hasn’t been nom worthy that she did not deserve the Oscar for THAT performance.April 4, 2014 at 9:36 am #150101
Back to the topic at hand, “Blue Jasmine” for sure (with Bullock as a very close second), and “Notes on a Scandal,” although I do like JH’s win for “Dreamgirls” because I do believe that movie only came alive when she was on screen.April 4, 2014 at 9:30 am #150100
She should have won her third Oscar this year. How an “actress” like Jennifer Hudson won over anyone in 2007 remains one of those moments where you have to laugh and ask how prestigous the award itself is.
Did you see “Dallas Buyer’s Club” or do you just hate him because he made some crappy rom coms before?
Did you see “The Paperboy”? Or “Mud”? Or “True Detective”? Or “Magic Mike” for that matter?
Guy’s a great actor. To be honest, I think all of the love for Daniel Day-Lewis is more out of obligation and equating pretentious and stiff with good acting. I’d say McConaughey’s win is more deserving than either of DDL’s last two.March 27, 2014 at 10:00 am #149259
Actually, Brown specifically states that violent content is ok to expose kids to, and does not fall under the same obscenity standard that guides regulation of sexual content. So, while the MPAA is hypocritical when it comes to violence vs. sexual content in ratings, any kind of state or congressional standard will be worse. There will be a distinct separation in ratings between films with any violent content being available to kids and anything with sexual content. And Scott is right, anything that remotely presents gay persons in a positive light will be strictly regulated. Guarantee that “Brokeback Mountain” would have been slapped with something akin to X or NC-17 and never allowed to flourish the way it did.
Personally, the last thing the film industry needs is to be hauled into hearings to justify the content of their artistry. Any government regulation of films and ratings will stifle filmmakers and neuter film in a way that the MPAA could never do.March 26, 2014 at 10:59 am #149247
Okay, MPAA system is really fucked up if they stamp your typical chick flick with ‘R’ rating. The movie has no ‘fucks’, no nakedness and it gets ‘R’ because of some sexual references? Really?
Just look at the trailer: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDcaZ3StTfI[/url]
Does it scream ‘R’ to you? Just get rid of MPAA altogheter.
Maybe it’s the male ‘titties’ and the drinking and all the ‘rehab’ talk…..
I’ve said this before, but I’m all for getting rid of the MPAA. I will decide what is age-appropriate. In the case of minors, that’s their parent’s job.
We dont have any shortage of morality police telling us what ratings a film receives or not.
I think the concern in the US at least is that if the MPAA (which is voluntary self-monitoring) is abolished, then there will be pressure, especially from far-right groups, for the federal government to create and oversee a ratings system, or even worse, set the standards for how things are rated. So while it’s a horrible and inconsistent system that allows extreme violence to sashay through with a PG or PG-13 but slaps an R on with the first tit or utterance of “f**K”, it’s better than the alternative.March 26, 2014 at 10:26 am #148770
While I disagree with Scott on Streep’s overall career and career choices (I think that her films and performances over the last 10 years are for the most part, much better than he does), I do agree with him that the A:OC nomination was met with more skepticism than usual (whether that skepticism was fair or not is a separate issue), and I do think that she will have a harder time grabbing a nom, at least for the next few years.
I’m also confident that she’ll pull out another instant-classic, out of nowhere performance (a la “Prada”) that will erase or diminish the skepticism and cynical attitudes that currently seem to be rumbling about.
Based on those involved in this project, this very well could be that project. I’m excited to see what comes of it.March 26, 2014 at 10:03 am #149244
I’d guess it’s because behind the scenes, the studio/producer/whoever owns the rights to the Natalie Portman flick didn’t feel it necessary to challenge the use of the title. A lawsuit over something like this is not automatically triggered- the “aggrieved” party would have to initiate it, so if they don’t, there’s no suit.
“The Butler” was an interesting situation, and I’d guess everyone benefitted- the original was a little-known, long forgotten film and likely no one bothered to find out if the name had been used. Suddenly, there’s a lawsuit, and the OB (Original Butler) gets dusted off and perhaps spurs people to track it down and see it, and LDTB gets a wave of publicity oddly close to the release period. I’d say no one lost in that scenario.
In this case, I’d guess either the current producers either got permission in advance to use the title, or those who own the original just decided it wasn’t worth it.March 25, 2014 at 4:06 pm #148753
Personally, I’d hardly call “Philadelphia” or “Rachel Getting Married” a compromise or a concession.March 25, 2014 at 1:13 pm #148742
As I posted in the March Casting thread:
Maybe this will weaken the argument that Streep only chooses to work with passive, inexperienced directors that she can control. I mean, who’s really gonna have the balls to knock Oscar-winner Jonathan Demme?March 25, 2014 at 1:12 pm #147297
But the argument is that she tends to work with weak directors. Demme is not a weak director. Whether she’s worked with him before is irrelevant to that discussion.
And, I loved both the original and Demme versions of “MC” so I’m pumped.March 25, 2014 at 1:01 pm #148646
His “Scent of a Woman” performance embodied everything that is bad about his acting. Of course he wins for that, so outside of his brilliant work in “Angels in America,” he’s chosen to completely ignore the early, understated quality of his work and mistake ham and bombast for acting. I really have a hard time watching him in anything these days.March 25, 2014 at 12:46 pm #147295
Pook- I came on to post this Streep/Demme/Cody article.
Maybe this will weaken the argument that Streep only chooses to work with passive, inexperienced directors that she can control. I mean, who’s really gonna have the balls to knock Oscar-winner Jonathan Demme?March 24, 2014 at 4:47 pm #313544
The Golden Girls—the one with Rita Moreno.
YES! And the pilot wasn’t very good either- they had not found they’re rythm.
I also find the one where they spend the night at the homeless shelter completely out of place and bizarre. I mean if it had been DJ, Steffy and Kimmy on a very special episode of “Full House” I’d buy it.March 24, 2014 at 4:23 pm #308175
Eastern Canada bias. The top 2 votegetters at last June’s Leo nominations (Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Foundation of British Columbia) were Continuum and a CBC series called Arctic Air. Both filmed in BC. Between them, 30 nominations (16 Continuum, 14 Arctic Air). Today between them? 3. I’d say that’s a pretty naked, rip-roaring bias against western Canada TV productions, yes? Shows filmed in Toronto in particular got the most love (Rookie Blue’s 9 nominations as exhibit B). The Screenies press conference today only exposed just how stacked the deck is against Vancouver-based TV shows. Did the voters even watch Second Opinion or Second Time, the two best performances of Nichols’ career? And two of the best from this past season as a whole? No.
Just curious- and only curious, not to prove a point. I’m not Canadian (but Orphan Black and Continuum are both on my to-see list). Are the Leo nominations ONLY for British Columbian productions as opposed to all of Canada. Would Orphan Black be eligible to be nominated, or do do the Leo nominate from a significantly smaller pool of programs, therefore making it likely that a show would get more noms if it had less competition? If both awards mentioned allow all Canadian productions, then I’d think that both Eastern and Western Canada were biased.March 20, 2014 at 11:26 am #148116
Ok Smiley. But I must say that being accused of being “biased” from a fanboy like no other is highly amusing.
To answer the question in this thread, thinking about it overnight, overall I have very mixed feelings. It begs larger questions about our society and social expectations.
Still, we seldom object to makeup to transform or define a character. Knifing your face/body and injecting bacteria into our dermis and epidermis just makes things more difficult or impossible to wash off.
Yes it is amusing, but being a fanboy like no other does not mean we should allow them to hijack threads simply because they are a fanboy, lol. It’s very annoying. And it is absolutely the most batshit crazy response I’ve ever gotten, so I’ll stand by that, lol!
And I think that your observation about larger societal expectation is closer to what I was talking about to begin with. I find it sad that actors, particularly women, are pushed to go to extreme measures for the sake of their careers, and that this pressure often leads to disastrous results. The sad truth is, makeup is used to enhance a performance but often the irreversible surgeries have the opposite effect- they distract from a performance, and take away from what the actor is doing. Do you think it’s a disservice to note that when reviewing or discussing a film or performance?